Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S4 · Q5 Judge: The case before me

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Judge: The case before me involves a plaintiff and three codefendants.

Conclusion

We cannot grant the request that the plaintiff be able to question each defendant one at a time (their counsel is allowed, but the other defendants and the other defendants' lawyers would have to leave the room).

Evidence

Two of the codefendants share the same lawyers, and we're not going to make any of these defendants find a new lawyer.

Evaluate

If all the defendants had their own lawyers, then granting this request would just mean that each defendant would have their lawyer present for some solo questioning, while all the other defendants and lawyers left the room.

But since Eddie and Bob have the same lawyer, Teresa, we're in a conundrum: If we're questioning Eddie, does Teresa get to stay or go?

Because Teresa is Eddie's lawyer, she should be able to stay. But because Teresa is one of the other defendants' lawyers (Bob's), she should go.

How can we resolve this? One possible way would be to tell Eddie and Bob that they can't share a lawyer. But the judge says that we're not going to do that.

The only other possible way would be to tell Eddie that he can't have his lawyer present.

Goal

Since the only way to grant this request (given that we can't make anyone get a new lawyer) is to make those two codefendants have their questioning without their lawyer present, in order to solidify the judge's ruling that we can't grant the request, we have to establish that we can't tolerate the idea of having the codefendants questioned without their lawyer present.

5.

The conclusion of the judge's argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following principles is assumed to hold?

  1. A court cannot issue an

    Out of Scope: "disclose info revealed"

    This answer doesn't rule out our remaining wiggle room (couldn't these codefendants just have no lawyer present) and it brings up a brand new concept of forcing lawyers to disclose info their clients have revealed.

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    Defendants have the right to

    Why this is right

    If everyone has the right to have their lawyer present, and two people have the same lawyer, and we're not making anyone get new lawyers, then there's no way for me to question one of those two people while kicking out all codefendants and codefendants' lawyers.

    Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    83% picked this

  3. People being questioned in legal

    Out of Scope

    Thanks for bringing up the 5th Amendment to the Constitution choice (C). Whether or not people being questioned have to answer questions that are self-incriminating has nothing to do with our focus ... whether or not it's possible to question one of these codefendants without any other codefendants or their lawyers being present.

    1% picked this

  4. A plaintiff in a legal

    Unclear Impact

    This rule would only be useful to us if knew whether or not the stuff the plaintiff is requesting has been denied to the defendants. We have no information about whether the defendants will be able to question the plaintiff without her co-plaintiffs or their lawyers present.

    7% picked this

  5. A defendant's legal counsel has

    Out of Scope

    We're only concerned with whether or not the plaintiff will be granted a certain thing. We don't really care what rights / allowances the defendant is receiving, other than whether they have a right to have their counsel present (since that the only possible way to grant the plaintiff's request would hinge on questioning two of the codefendants without their counsel present)

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free